As intelligent humans whenever we want to create something, we usually have an idea of what we want to create. Then we think a lot about our idea. We think of ways to bring that idea into existence. Take the Disney theme parks.

Disney engineers created elaborate blueprints for what they wanted to Ã¢â‚¬Å“create.Ã¢â‚¬Â As creative humans, we are highly mentally focused during the process of creation and know Ã¢â‚¬Å“whereÃ¢â‚¬Â we are goingÃ¢â‚¬â€what the end results will be--in Disney's case a multi-ride eloborate "theme park."

Since evolution is not conscious or as evo scientists say blind to the future, how does Ã¢â‚¬Å“itÃ¢â‚¬Â stay on task to Ã¢â‚¬Å“evolveÃ¢â‚¬Â one species into another? What accomplishes the task of focus to keep providing the small but necessarily precision steps to evolve by random mutation a bear/ dog ancestor to a dog species and a bear species? It would seem with random information there would be a lot of drift? This dilemma would seem even worse for going from a dinosaur to a bird or an ape/ human ancestor to separate ape species and a separate human species? Any suggestions?

As intelligent humans whenever we want to create something, we usually have an idea of what we want to create. Then we think a lot about our idea. We think of ways to bring that idea into existence. Take the Disney theme parks.

Disney engineers created elaborate blueprints for what they wanted to Ã¢â‚¬Å“create.Ã¢â‚¬Â As creative humans, we are highly mentally focused during the process of creation and know Ã¢â‚¬Å“whereÃ¢â‚¬Â we are goingÃ¢â‚¬â€what the end results will be--in Disney's case a multi-ride eloborate "theme park."

Since evolution is not conscious or as evo scientists say blind to the future, how does Ã¢â‚¬Å“itÃ¢â‚¬Â stay on task to Ã¢â‚¬Å“evolveÃ¢â‚¬Â one species into another? What accomplishes the task of focus to keep providing the small but necessarily precision steps to evolve by random mutation a bear/ dog ancestor to a dog species and a bear species? It would seem with random information there would be a lot of drift? This dilemma would seem even worse for going from a dinosaur to a bird or an ape/ human ancestor to separate ape species and a separate human species? Any suggestions?

Evolution staying on task: Isn't convergent evolution more or less assuming that evolution stays on task.

How does a Tasmanian wolf and a North American Wolf come out looking related but having a very distinct evolutionary pathway? Ostensibly wolf evolution is "staying of task" or foreordained and not a random process.

Evolution staying on task: Isn't convergent evolution more or less assuming that evolution stays on task.

How does a Tasmanian wolf and a North American Wolf come out looking related but having a very distinct evolutionary pathway? Ostensibly wolf evolution is "staying of task" or foreordained and not a random process.

This is what I was thinking. The same designs in completely different animals can't possibly be random... or at least Evolutionist would want us to believe it is.

This is what I was thinking.Ã‚Â The same designs in completely different animals can't possibly be random... or at least Evolutionist would want us to believe it is.

Yes, I realize that evolution does not set out to create a specific animal. However, specific animals do exist Once evo starts evolving, for example, a bird from a dinosaur, how does it continue to make the decisions that cause it to continue to only accept mutations that will allow the formation of the bird? Obviously birds exist as different from dinosaurs.

If they evolved, there had to be some consistency of that evolution. That is what is so confusing to me. If I wanted to build a house, by comparison, I would continuously make choices that contribute to the building of the house. I wouldn't take a piston from a car and think that will help me build my house. That would be an example of going random. I have never observed anyone build anything that was totally random.

So, my question restated is' How can evolution evolve so many different animals (randomly) but "seem" to use small concsistant precision steps to cause transition from whatever to whatever? "Things" pertaining to a dinasaur are different than the "things" pertaining to a bird. Right?

At some point all the random precision "simple" steps end up being complex.

Evolution is not a thing with a mind or a plan, it is a process. As mentioned above, there is no goal, no purpose, it is simply how things work. A bear is not a bear because it is supposed to be a bear, it is a culmination of variations which have succeeded in reproducing, and it is able to propagate itself successfully.

Consider a bowl a various colored sweets - everyone in the room likes the red, blue and yellow sweets, but no-one likes the green ones. Over time the only sweets remaining will be the green ones. There was no plan to have a bowl of green sweets, that is simply what occurred given the environment it was in. Should that environment change (a person who likes green ones enters the room, and the person who likes red leaves) and assuming that the sweet bowl is continually refilled, it will then change to a bowl of red sweets.

Given the considerable amount of time and opportunities that evolution has to work over, and the various environment conditions, this is why we have such a diverse example of life forms - all suited to they particular environment they are in. Mutations which do not work die out (as the yellow sweets 'die out' in an environment where people like yellow sweets).

Dinosaurs became birds not because there was a choice, but because the changes that brought it towards birds worked, and all the other changes did not work (and therefore they died off). At some point in the future the environment may change to one unsuited to birds, and birds may die off, and other forms of life emerge.

Another example - if you throw a deck of cards across the floor, then look at it, you may think (what are the chances of the cards falling exactly like that, it is impossible for them to fall exactly in that way, so someone must have planned it'. But they did fall in exactly that way, throw them again and they will fall in a different, equally unlikely way.

Evolution is not a thing with a mind or a plan, it is a process. As mentioned above, there is no goal, no purpose, it is simply how things work. A bear is not a bear because it is supposed to be a bear, it is a culmination of variations which have succeeded in reproducing, and it is able to propagate itself successfully.

In evolution, name which systems of the body evolved in what order, and how did they function until the other systems evolved?

Consider a bowl a various colored sweets - everyone in the room likes the red, blue and yellow sweets, but no-one likes the green ones. Over time the only sweets remaining will be the green ones. There was no plan to have a bowl of green sweets, that is simply what occurred given the environment it was in. Should that environment change (a person who likes green ones enters the room, and the person who likes red leaves) and assuming that the sweet bowl is continually refilled, it will then change to a bowl of red sweets.

Given the considerable amount of time and opportunities that evolution has to work over, and the various environment conditions, this is why we have such a diverse example of life forms - all suited to they particular environment they are in. Mutations which do not work die out (as the yellow sweets 'die out' in an environment where people like yellow sweets).

I did not know that the process of evolution has opportunities and work. You see that is what evolutionists commonly do. In one sentence it's a process, in another it becomes an intelligence that has opportunities and work.

Dinosaurs became birds not because there was a choice, but because the changes that brought it towards birds worked, and all the other changes did not work (and therefore they died off). At some point in the future the environment may change to one unsuited to birds, and birds may die off, and other forms of life emerge.

You speak as if you were there. Empirical evidence requires observation, a lab testable theory or process, or something that can be experienced by the individual. Did you, or anyone else: See, test, or experience what is claimed?

Another example - if you throw a deck of cards across the floor, then look at it, you may think (what are the chances of the cards falling exactly like that, it is impossible for them to fall exactly in that way, so someone must have planned it'. But they did fall in exactly that way, throw them again and they will fall in a different, equally unlikely way.

Then we have the "odds don't matter game". Let's see you go to Vegas and come out a million bucks richer. The odds there are a lot less than the odds of evolution.

Given the considerable amount of time and opportunities that evolution has to work over, and the various environment conditions, this is why we have such a diverse example of life forms - all suited to they particular environment they are in. Mutations which do not work die out (as the yellow sweets 'die out' in an environment where people like yellow sweets).

The above are merely speculation and opinion. Please provide the empirical evidence, or admit the suppositions.

Dinosaurs became birds not because there was a choice, but because the changes that brought it towards birds worked, and all the other changes did not work (and therefore they died off).

Rule of thumb: If you are going to make a Ã¢â‚¬Å“factualÃ¢â‚¬Â assertion, you are responsible to provide the Ã¢â‚¬Å“FactsÃ¢â‚¬Â to back it up. Otherwise you are merely making speculations, opinions and Ã¢â‚¬Å“a prioriÃ¢â‚¬Â presuppositions (in other words, a Ã¢â‚¬Å“faith statementÃ¢â‚¬Â or series of Ã¢â‚¬Å“faith statementsÃ¢â‚¬Â).

One- Did you observe dinosaurs became birds?

Two Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Do you know anyone who has observed dinosaurs became birds?

Three Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Do you have, your possession, a series of gradual transitional fossils showing a dinosaur evolving into a bird?

Four - Do you personally know someone, who has in their possession, a series of gradual transitional fossils showing a dinosaur evolving into a bird?

If not Otherwise you are merely making speculations, opinions and Ã¢â‚¬Å“a prioriÃ¢â‚¬Â presuppositions (in other words, a Ã¢â‚¬Å“faith statementÃ¢â‚¬Â or series of Ã¢â‚¬Å“faith statementsÃ¢â‚¬Â).

At some point in the future the environment may change to one unsuited to birds, and birds may die off, and other forms of life emerge.

This is whatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s known as the Argumentum ad Futuris logical fallacy. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s basically a prayer to the future that your prognostications will come true.

In evolution, name which systems of the body evolved in what order, and how did they function until the other systems evolved?

I am not biologist, nor do a feel a question asking for no less than a biological thesis is quiet fair! However, there are plenty of examples out there - for examples we see various forms, or 'stages' of organs that sense light, which can help build a picture of how an eye could have slowly developed from sinple photosensitive cells.

I did not know that the process of evolution has opportunities and work. You see that is what evolutionists commonly do. In one sentence it's a process, in another it becomes an intelligence that has opportunities and work.

True, it can be confusing - I think those it is mainly due to linguistically short cuts - We say a sign 'tells us to do something' however the sign is doing nothing, it is simply there and all actions is taken by the reader. Evolution is a process and please excuse anything I say that may appear to suggest otherwise, it is simply trying to term a somewhat complex concept into manageable terms (for myself as much as anyone else!).

Basically I am saying that over a long enough period of time, the application of the process can cause in a diverse and wonderful range of results.

You speak as if you were there. Empirical evidence requires observation, a lab testable theory or process, or something that can be experienced by the individual. Did you, or anyone else: See, test, or experience what is claimed?

I apologies if I sound overly authoritarian, I'm certainly not, though I think you are somewhat side tracking this - this was in response the the question 'how does evolution stay on track' and I am trying to point out that there is no track to stay on, what is here is here not because it is supposed to be here, but simply because it is what has worked.

The answer your question, yes, many people make a living out of studying evidence from the past, often distant path, and have collected a huge example of evidence to show the slow adaptation of one species to another (however, I was not there and have not lived long enough to witness it myself!).

Then we have the "odds don't matter game". Let's see you go to Vegas and come out a million bucks richer. The odds there are a lot less than the odds of evolution.

You misunderstand me, I am more trying to explain about 'viewpoint' than odds. If we throw a deck of cards across a room, we know they are going to end up somewhere, on some order. The same with evolution, the way life is at the minute is not because it is supposed to be such a way, it is simply because that is the way it is. rewind it all and start again, and just as a second throw of cards will result in something different, so life would be much different than it is now.

Another example - if you throw a deck of cards across the floor, then look at it, you may think (what are the chances of the cards falling exactly like that, it is impossible for them to fall exactly in that way, so someone must have planned it'. But they did fall in exactly that way, throw them again and they will fall in a different, equally unlikely way.

The odds of any given sequence of cards is 100% possible. That's what the odds are because that's what came out. The real issue would be to see after shuffling the cards if they came out in the exact same order as the first time. This example is a classic case of evolutionary diversionary baloney.

Another version of this argument is driving into a parking lot and seeing a license plate with say the numbers MHS230. In a state where there are 20 million cars registered, what are the odds of pulling into a parking lot and finding a license plate with the above mentioned numbers on it? Again the odds are 100%. The real trick would be to guess the license plate numbers before pulling imto the parking lot. When the flaw in logic is pointed out, the argument falls to the floor.

There are 3.2 billion genes that are in the human gene genome. After conception each of cells in our body (arround 100 trillion) is rerppduced through a process called mitosis. If any cells in this process do not evenly devide then cancer is the result.

And then there is cell differenciation which is what the stem cell thing is all about. Simply put the chances of the gene genome coming out in correct order to make a human would be "simply" put one chance in 3.2 billion. The difference in analogies occurs because one has to have the deck of cards in the first place (in their present order) by shuffling them before throwing them the chances of them coming out in the same order they were before shuffling makes the odds drop like a lead baloon. Guessing the correct order of the cards after shuffling them and tossing them would result in it not happening on this planet in five billion years.

The odds of any given sequence of cards is 100% possible. That's what the odds are because that's what came out. The real issue would be to see after shuffling the cards if they came out in the exact same order as the first time. This example is a classic case of evolutionary diversionary baloney.

Another version of this argument is driving into a parking lot and seeing a license plate with say the numbers MHS230. In a state where there are 20 million cars registered, what are the odds of pulling into a parking lot and finding a license plate with the above mentioned numbers on it? Again the odds are 100%. The real trick would be to guess the license plate numbers before pulling imto the parking lot. When the flaw in logic is pointed out, the argument falls to the floor.

Exactly Mike - looking at the end result and saying 'it is so complex how could it possibly have happened' is erroneous. The OP was curious about how could evolution possible have resulted in a bear becoming a dog, a dinosaur a bird etc. but that is assuming that a dinosaur is 'supposed' to become a bird, the same way when you see a deck of cards lying on the card you may consider the 8 of diamonds was supposed to land face up next to the door.

Wow. Let me try again. (the cards came out the way they did) The bird does exist. I am refering to all the magic that exists between the dinosaur transitioning into a bird. Just saying it happened is awfully circular. You are using logic like the license plate example.

Exactly Mike - looking at the end result and saying 'it is so complex how could it possibly have happened' is erroneous. The OP was curious about how could evolution possible have resulted in a bear becoming a dog, a dinosaur a bird etc. but that is assuming that a dinosaur is 'supposed' to become a bird, the same way when you see a deck of cards lying on the card you may consider the 8 of diamonds was supposed to land face up next to the door.

No, evolutionists CLAIM dinosaurs evolved into birds. But they do so with NO real evidence. It is simply opinion and presupposition.

Also, your deck of cards analogy is a bad one, because a deck of cards is a man made construct (i.e. designed and manufactured by the design of man).

But, conserning dinosaurs evolving into birds, I would further ask:

One- Did you observe dinosaurs became birds?

Two Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Do you know anyone who has observed dinosaurs became birds?

Three Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Do you have, your possession, a series of gradual transitional fossils showing a dinosaur evolving into a bird?

Four - Do you personally know someone, who has in their possession, a series of gradual transitional fossils showing a dinosaur evolving into a bird?

If not you are merely making speculations, opinions and Ã¢â‚¬Å“a prioriÃ¢â‚¬Â presuppositions (in other words, a Ã¢â‚¬Å“faith statementÃ¢â‚¬Â or series of Ã¢â‚¬Å“faith statementsÃ¢â‚¬Â).

No, evolutionists CLAIM dinosaurs evolved into birds. But they do so with NO real evidence. It is simply opinion and presupposition.

Also, your deck of cards analogy is a bad one, because a deck of cards is a man made construct (i.e. designed and manufactured by the design of man).

But, conserning dinosaurs evolving into birds, I would further ask:If not you are merely making speculations, opinions and Ã¢â‚¬Å“a prioriÃ¢â‚¬Â presuppositions (in other words, a Ã¢â‚¬Å“faith statementÃ¢â‚¬Â or series of Ã¢â‚¬Å“faith statementsÃ¢â‚¬Â).

Hi Ron,

You appear to be disingenuously taking my reply out of context. The OP made a question 'on the assumption that evolution was taken as a given' i.e. if evolution is true, then how is it that ... and my reply was in that vein - I was explaining how _assuming that evolution is taken_ life can be in the form we see it today. I find such starting assumptions essential to progress complex and multifaceted discussing, for example I may ask 'Assuming an intelligent designer exists, how do you explain ... ' - this allows one an other to set aside some areas of disagreement for a time to further understand each others position. If you are going to weigh in to every post demanding complete evidence for every position you are going to make it very difficult for a reasonable discussion to progress.

Also, the fact that the cards are mad made is irrelevant to the point I was making - I could just as easily have said gains of sand on a beech, hairs on a dog etc. The point I am making is that looking at the end of complex system and assuming it is the way it is 'supposed' to be, and extrapolating that it is too complex to have happened without intervention is the wrong approach.

As intelligent humans whenever we want to create something, we usually have an idea of what we want to create. Then we think a lot about our idea. We think of ways to bring that idea into existence. Take the Disney theme parks.

Disney engineers created elaborate blueprints for what they wanted to Ã¢â‚¬Å“create.Ã¢â‚¬Â As creative humans, we are highly mentally focused during the process of creation and know Ã¢â‚¬Å“whereÃ¢â‚¬Â we are goingÃ¢â‚¬â€what the end results will be--in Disney's case a multi-ride eloborate "theme park."

Since evolution is not conscious or as evo scientists say blind to the future, how does Ã¢â‚¬Å“itÃ¢â‚¬Â stay on task to Ã¢â‚¬Å“evolveÃ¢â‚¬Â one species into another? What accomplishes the task of focus to keep providing the small but necessarily precision steps to evolve by random mutation a bear/ dog ancestor to a dog species and a bear species? It would seem with random information there would be a lot of drift? This dilemma would seem even worse for going from a dinosaur to a bird or an ape/ human ancestor to separate ape species and a separate human species? Any suggestions?

Since another evolutionist already posted a reply, maybe mine will cover his a bit, i dont know. In any case, here is my response.

Evolution throws everything out as a trial-and-error process. Its the most simplistic, easiest, yet most time-consuming method there is. I wouldnt exactly call it "Focused", because it throws out multiple paths and sees which works. Its why 97% of all species that have ever existed on this planet, is dead. There is a lot of drift, and much of that drifting, actually, 97% of that drifting ended up a dead end.

I think it's a misconception to think that evolution has any purpose or direction. I think when someone says "evolution made that" it seems to point that evolution had a hand in guiding it from start to finish when that is false. Evolution simply rewards an organism that has traits that help it survive with continued existence.

I think it's a misconception to think that evolution has any purpose or direction. I think when someone says "evolution made that" it seems to point that evolution had a hand in guiding it from start to finish when that is false. Evolution simply rewards an organism that has traits that help it survive with continued existence.

So, evolution doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have a hand in guiding, but it does have a hand in rewarding? IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not sure that the latter makes any more sense than the former.

You appear to be disingenuously taking my reply out of context. The OP made a question 'on the assumption that evolution was taken as a given' i.e. if evolution is true, then how is it that ... and my reply was in that vein - I was explaining how _assuming that evolution is taken_ life can be in the form we see it today. I find such starting assumptions essential to progress complex and multifaceted discussing, for example I may ask 'Assuming an intelligent designer exists, how do you explain ... ' - this allows one an other to set aside some areas of disagreement for a time to further understand each others position. If you are going to weigh in to every post demanding complete evidence for every position you are going to make it very difficult for a reasonable discussion to progress.

Also, the fact that the cards are mad made is irrelevant to the point I was making - I could just as easily have said gains of sand on a beech, hairs on a dog etc. The point I am making is that looking at the end of complex system and assuming it is the way it is 'supposed' to be, and extrapolating that it is too complex to have happened without intervention is the wrong approach.

Thanks

A thorough refutation of your points doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t make me disingenuous. It just makes your points insolvent.